Reforming Mississippi’s Prison System

Prepared by the JFA Institute

with assistance from the Mississippi Department of Corrections
for the
Public Safety Performance Project, the Pew Center on the States

Like many states, Mississippi has been struggling with an ever increasing prison
population and the costs associated with that system. But unlike most other states,
Mississippi has recently enacted a series of sentencing reforms with bi-partisan support
that have resulted in a fundamental shift in its prison population trends. This paper
describes how this occurred and the preliminary effects on the correctional system and
public safety.

The Mississippi story provides several important lessons for other states seeking to curb
their prison populations. First, without leadership from the Executive and Legislative
branches of state government reform is unlikely to occur. Second, reductions in the
growth of prison populations can be most effectively achieved by modifying current
sentencing laws and adjusting correctional practices that govern how long a person is
imprisoned. Together the legislative and administrative reforms have resulted in
Mississippi fundamentally modifying the projected prison population at a considerable
savings to the state while maintaining public safety. These add up to some very
substantial reforms for a law and order state with a conservative governor.

One common thread connecting the reforms is the corrections commissioner, Chris Epps.
Appointed by a Democratic governor in 2002, Commissioner Epps was given little
chance to retain his job when Governor Haley Barbour was elected. But Commissioner
Epps met with Governor Barbour, presented a plan for effectively managing the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (―DOC‖), and was retained. The commissioner
personally promoted the parole eligibility changes this year in the Legislature, where he
knows every lawmaker by his or her first name.

While budget concerns were certainly a key catalyst for legislative passage of the parole
eligibility expansion, Governor Barbour and other state leaders acknowledged that they
viewed it as smart policy as well. As Governor Barbour‘s former spokesman, Pete Smith,
stated:

―The majority of inmates have a release date - meaning at some point in the future,
they will return to society. This legislation was more about re-entry than it was
budget concerns. By focusing on inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes and having
no violent crimes in their criminal history, we created a mechanism to transition -
with parole board approval - a population of inmates back into society.‖1

1
Personal Interview, via email, July 10, 2008.

1
The Impetus for Sentencing Reform

Like many states, Mississippi adopted truth-in-sentencing laws in the mid-1990s

requiring inmates to serve at least 85% of their sentence before release consideration.
But unlike other states that limited the 85% rule to persons convicted of violent crimes,
the 1995 legislation in Mississippi required all offenders to serve at least 85% of their
sentence.2 Prior to the 1995 change, prisoners were required to serve out their sentence
less good time credits. And most prisoners were eligible for discretionary parole release
after serving one-quarter to one-third of their sentence and flat-time release after serving
50% of their sentence. Parole grant rates (the chance that an inmate will receive parole
release on his or her first eligibility date) under this sentencing structure averaged 50%.
Under the new sentencing structure passed in 1995, grant rates declined – 26% for men,
32% for women – and offenders began serving a substantially longer percentage of the
imposed sentence.

As a result, Mississippi‘s prison population has more than doubled since 1994, from
11,250 to 22,800 by 2007. The state‘s incarceration rate in 1994 was about 400 per
100,000 resident population and had increased to approximately 735 per 100,000
residents population by 2007 – the second highest rate in the United States. In 1994, the
DOC budget was $109.6 million. By 2007, the prison budget was $327 million, and the
three state prisons were at 99% of capacity.

In recent years, a few legislators and Commissioner Epps have fought to allow certain
offenders to reduce the incarceration portion of their sentence by accumulating good time
credits. In 1999, new legislation allowed trusties, inmates given certain privileges based
on prior good behavior, to earn 10 days of good time for every 30 days served (Trusty
Earned Time).3 In 2001, the state reinstated parole eligibility retroactive to January 1,
2000 for first time non-violent offenders except for those convicted of sale or
manufacture of drugs or offenses with enhanced penalties.4 Additionally in 2004, new
legislation increased the trusty earned time allowance for certain offenders to 30 days
credit for every 30 days in trusty status.5 This legislation, however, made most drug
offenders ineligible for any type of trusty time. However, these reforms were insufficient
to stem the growing tide of prisoners.

Legislative Reforms Since 2007

In 2008, lawmakers took a dramatic step by approving a bill, SB 2136, that permits all
nonviolent offenders to once again become eligible for parole after serving 25% of their
sentence.6 The basic intent of this reform was to modestly reduce the amount of time a
prisoner is incarcerated. Underpinning this reform was the fact that both in Mississippi
and elsewhere there is little if any statistical relationship between how long a person is

2
Miss. Code Ann. §§ 47-7-3, 47-5-138 and § 47-5-139 (June 30, 1995).
3
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-138.1 (April 15, 1999).
4
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3 (July 1, 2001).
5
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-138.1 (April 28, 2004).
6
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3 (April 7, 2008).

2
imprisoned and recidivism rates. This means that prisoners serving 6, 12, 24, or 36
months have similar recidivism rates.7 So any reform that serves to modestly reduce the
period of imprisonment will not negatively impact recidivism rates. However, a modest
decline in the length of stay will have a dramatic impact on the size of the prison
population.

One of several champions for the changes in the Legislature was Sen. Willie Simmons of
Cleveland, chairman of the Senate Corrections Committee. Prior to his election in 1992,
Simmons was a Pre-release Counselor and Deputy Director of Corrections. Despite the
bipartisan support that SB 2136 ultimately received, Sen. Simmons said many of his
colleagues were wary of being viewed as soft on crime when first asked to support the
measure.

―Anything that puts them in that light is not good politics for them,‖ Sen. Simmons said.
―But the corrections budget just kept growing, and every year, it was taking away from
everything else across the board. So the timing was right, and we were able to convince
people to go along with it.‖8

While there was some opposition, Sen. Simmons said it was ―very unusual‖ that
legislators did not receive more criticism for the new policy. ―It just shows it was
important and that something needed to be done.‖9

Commissioner Epps was a key player in drumming up votes for the new law, in part by
reassuring lawmakers during committee testimony that public safety would not be put at
risk. ―He made a point of telling them that these are not the offenders you‘re afraid of,
they are the ones you‘re mad at, and for them there are other alternatives,‖ recalled
Deputy Corrections Commissioner Emmitt Sparkman. ―He said, ‗We‘re not going to put
people out on the street who are a threat to public safety,‘ and he was very persuasive.‖10

Governor Barbour, for one, was convinced. And not just by the predicted savings the bill
would deliver for his economically stressed state. As his spokesman, Pete Smith said, ―To
release inmates solely based on cost would not be prudent. The driving force behind this
bill was a practical matter of good policy.‖11

At the time the bill was passed, it was estimated that the new law would impact
approximately 4,500 inmates, or about 25% of the 22,800 total population. A unique
feature of SB 2136 was that it was applied retroactively in order to have an immediate
impact on the prison population and to ensure equity in the sentencing process. About
3,000 inmates or 12% of the total population had already met their time-served
requirement and were immediately eligible for parole consideration. This created a

7
Langan, Dr. Patrick A., and Dr. David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).
8
Personal Interview, via telephone, July 9, 2008.
9
Personal Interview, via telephone, July 9, 2008.
10
Personal Interview, via telephone, July 3, 2008.
11
Personal Interview, via email, July 10, 2008.

3
situation where the parole board, with a new chairwoman, had to quickly increase its
capacity to conduct hearings and begin processing cases.

One wild card was whether the parole board would continue its past low parole grant
rates – 26% for men, 32% for women — or perhaps even reduce that rate out of caution.
A further and related complication was that the parole board had no parole risk
instrument that could be applied to the cases to determine which persons were best suited
for release. To assist the state, the Bureau of Justice Assistance provided immediate
technical assistance through the JFA Institute to design and implement a parole risk
instrument. Case managers were quickly trained in the new instrument and began
screening the cases prior to parole consideration.

As noted above, the affected inmates are those who have never been convicted of a
violent crime. Through August 2009, about 3,100 prisoners had been paroled due to the
new law. The mean sentence length of these people is 7 years with a median (the more
typical) sentence length of 5 years. Using the median sentence length, prior to the law
these prisoners would be eligible for release at 85% or after serving about 4.25 years.
With the new law, the same prisoners are eligible after serving 25% or 1.25 years. This is
a difference of 3 years of imprisonment. But bear in mind that it only impacts the parole
eligibility date and does not guarantee a prison release. If the parole board maintains its
historical low grant rates of 26-32%, only a minority of the affected prisoners would
benefit from the new law.

The JFA Institute also provided various forecasts for the state to estimate the impact of
the new law. Prior to 2008, the JFA Institute estimated that the prison population would
grow to nearly 28,000 if the bill was not passed. Various scenarios were modeled by the
JFA Institute based on different parole grant rates. If the Board retained its grant rate at
the 26-32% level, the reduction in time served resulting from the earlier parole eligibility
would keep the population flat and allow Mississippi to avoid building and operating an
additional 5,000 prison beds over the next 10 years.

Finally, this past year there have been two other legislative amendments. One allows the
Commissioner to award additional meritorious earned time (MET) after the person
reaches the prior 180-day limit.12 MET moves up both the parole eligibility date and the
offender‘s release date. The second reform expands the department‘s authority to allow
persons convicted of most drug crimes to be placed under house arrest with electronic
monitoring.13 While not reducing the prisoner‘s length of sentence or incarceration, it
does allow the department to place a greater number of prisoners under house arrest
status rather than in a correctional facility.

Results to Date

The major impact of these recent reforms has been the elimination of the projected
increase in the prison population. As shown in Figure 1, a few months after the 2008

12
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-142 (March 9, 2009).
13
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-1003 (April 7, 2009).

4
legislation went into effect the projected growth was eliminated and Mississippi‘s prison
population actually has steadily declined.

This decline in 2008 and through 2009 was largely produced by the Parole Board hearing
a larger number of cases each month due to SB 2136 and in particular the fact that the
law was retroactive to the existing prisoner population (see Figure 2). But equally
important was the fact that the Board modestly increased its parole grant rate (Figure 2).
This was due in part to the new parole risk instrument that was helping the Board assess
each case.

The increases in parole hearings and the grant rate were expediting parole releases, which
in turn began a surge in the parole population (see Figure 3). In anticipation of the surge
in the parole population, the DOC reallocated its existing parole resources to meet the
demand in supervision. But ultimately the state will need to alter how long parolees are
supervised. Currently, the DOC is exploring the method adopted successfully by Nevada
where parolees and now probationers continue to receive the same good time credits they
were receiving as a prisoner.

How has this impacted parole revocations? Despite the increase in the parole population,
the rate of parole revocations has not changed. There has been an uptick in the number of
parole revocations as one would expect given the growth in the parole population. But the
rate of revocations per 1,000 has remained constant.

The Department of Corrections is also tracking those prisoners who have benefited from
SB 2136. Through August 2009, 3,076 prisoners had been released under the law. Their
median sentence was 5 years and they served approximately 2.5 years before being
released or about 50% of their sentence. The 50% time served is about midway between
the 25% new parole eligibility and the 85% old eligibility, which reflects the fact that the
bill was made retroactive, but also that not all prisoners are being released at their earliest
date of eligibility. The median amount of time between the old parole eligibility date and
the actual (new) parole release date is 13 months, which is a reflection of how time
served is being reduced for many of these people.

Of the nearly 3,100 prisoners who have been released, 121 (or 4%) had been returned to
custody. Of the 121 returnees, all but five were returned for technical parole violations.
Of the five returned for new crimes, four were returned for burglary crimes and one for a
DUI. This initial recidivism rate of 0.2% (return for a new offense) in the first year is a
fraction of the national rate of 10.4%.14 These results are encouraging, but should not
come as a surprise considering that any reform that modestly reduces the length of stay in
prison should not be expected to increase recidivism.

All of these new trends have resulted in the JFA Institute modifying the official
population projection. As shown in Figure 4, the long-term estimate is now flat rather
than increasing to nearly 28,000 by the year 2017. The reason the prison population is
not expected to continue to decline is due to the fact that the new laws do not impact all
14
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, p. 3.

5
offenders. There is still a significant percentage of the prison population who must serve
a substantial portion of their sentence, which in some cases is the full term. This is
creating a ―stacking effect‖ in the prison population and restricting further population
reductions. Under this scenario, the effects of SB 2136 and expanded meritorious good
time will have a diminishing effect. This can be seen in Figure 2, where the number of
parole hearings and the grant rate have begun to decline. Nevertheless, both the
immediate and long-term effects of the Mississippi reforms have averted a major prison
crowding crisis both now and for the future, and have done so while maintaining public
safety.

Figures 1 through 4 based on original analysis produced for this report by James Austin,
JFA Institute, November, 2009. Original data provided by the Mississippi Department of
Corrections.

6
7
8